Has Atari gone Chaotic Evil over D&D publishing rights?

Atari is facing a lot of legal drama over the way it has conducted itself …

Up until recently, Atari has been having a tough go of things. Between devastating financial losses and corporate restructuring, it was a bit of a wonder to see the company handle 2009 as well as it did, publishing some great games like The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena, Ghostbusters, and Champions Online. It looks like Atari may have jumped out of the pot and into a seething cauldron, however, as it is facing a couple of substantial lawsuits related to how it recently handled the Dungeons & Dragons license it holds, and how it treated some of the associated parties.

The biggest—and possibly most damaging—suit facing Atari was filed last week by Hasbro, the noted toy and board game company which happens to own tabletop game publisher Wizards of the Coast. Back in May, Namco Bandai bought a 34 percent stake in Atari Europe, and Namco Bandai also purchased Infogrames' interest in Distribution Partners this past July. If Hasbro's claims are to be believed, Atari apparently violated its licensing agreement with Hasbro when it sold Atari Europe, and it also misled Hasbro about the deal.

According to the lawsuit, "Namco Bandai, which has been supporting Dungeons & Dragons through its marketing website and customer support functions in these countries, obtained Hasbro' s confidential information about Dungeons & Dragons from Atari, and held itself out as a publisher of Dungeons & Dragons digital games previously published by Atari. Atari sold at least four of its subsidiaries actively engaged in Dungeons & Dragons licensed activities to Namco Bandai. Yet Atari has steadfastly denied any relationship between itself and Namco Bandai with respect to Dungeons & Dragons.

"Despite Hasbro's repeated questions about how its property was being managed in these countries, if Namco Bandai was not managing it, Atari has continuously refused to answer in any meaningful way.

"Hasbro can no longer trust its brand in the hands of Atari, and brings this action to confirm its right to terminate Atari's license to Dungeons & Dragons."

Not the first accusation of Chaotic Evil behavior

Strangely enough, this is the second time in recent memory that Atari has been sued over cheating a partner in the Dungeons & Dragons games. In August, Turbine Inc. (developer of Dungeons & Dragons Online filed suit against Atari, claiming that Atari signed a licensing deal that it had allegedly had no plan to honor. According to the suit, Atari acted "unreasonably" with its efforts to promote and distribute Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach, as well as failing to allocate proper resources to Turbine necessary to run the game.

Turbine also accuses Atari of accepting payments (including future royalties) in order to extend the publishing relationship between the two companies and launch Dungeons & Dragons Online: Unlimited even though Atari knew that it wouldn't fulfill its contractual obligations to Turbine. On top of this, Turbine claims Atari has continuously sought to declare the developer as being in breach of its contracts with Atari. While it isn't anything concrete, the fact that two lawsuits have been filed close together accusing Atari of similar behavior is certainly enough to raise suspicions.

Atari, of course, has been quick to deny these latest allegations. "Atari has had a long and rich history with the Dungeons and Dragons franchise, investing millions of dollars into numerous critically acclaimed and commercially successful games that have generated significant revenue for Hasbro," Atari said in a statement. "Hasbro has resorted to these meritless allegations, in an apparent attempt to unfairly take back rights granted to Atari. Atari has sought to resolve the matter without cooperation from Hasbro. We regret that our longtime partner has decided to pursue this action."

An ignoble treatment of a great franchise

While it's true that Atari has released a number of Dungeons & Dragons titles over the past few years, most of those have been tied to the Neverwinter Nights franchise initially established by Bioware. The few games outside of the Neverwinter Nights series haven't exactly been amazing, barring Dungeons & Dragons Online. Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes was a bland Gauntlet clone. Demon Stone had a reasonable story, but it lacked innovative gameplay and often felt derivative. The Temple of Elemental Evil was solid, but there were a number of bugs that had to be patched before it was really all that playable; Dragonshard was an enjoyable RTS title, but its single-player campaign was too short and it was missing a major racial campaign; finally, Dungeons & Dragons: Tactics was pretty much a total mess on the PSP.

That Atari has largely squandered an intellectual property as rich as the one Gary Gygax helped create is a shame. Of course, before Atari took over the rights to the franchise, other publishers that were in the same position didn't always do an amazing job with TSR's various properties. Case in point: Interplay hit on a winning formula with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, and proceeded to focus on those two series up until the company went bankrupt. That doesn't mean it's right, though: Dungeons & Dragons has some amazing campaign settings and storylines, and it's too bad that they haven't been translated into video games more often.

Depending on how this lawsuit turns out, Atari stands to lose a lot of money since the Neverwinter Nights games are a major source of income for the publisher. From a video game standpoint, though, this could be a good thing: it seems unlikely that developers such as Bioware and Obsidian aren't going to keep on receiving contracts to make Dungeons & Dragons titles. These games are both critical and commercial successes every time they're released, so it'd be stupid for Hasbro to stop employing quality studios to make these titles.

However, looking at a list of the most popular D&D games reveals a common thread behind them: developers like Bioware and Black Isle (which eventually became Obsidian Entertainment). Maybe Hasbro should cut out the middleman and instead just start employing studios that can develop products of suitable quality to do their better IPs justice. Or maybe Hasbro should just give the license to a publisher willing to deliver better —and more varied— Dungeons & Dragons games in the future.

Special thanks to Courthouse News, which is hosting the digital copies of both filed suits against Atari.

Jon Stokes and I discussed this after I edited and tweaked the headline. I went for chaotic evil, Jon for lawful evil. I decided to with CE for the headline, but it has been... longer since I have played than it has for Jon, so I probably should have listened to him.

I kind of hope Atari get's this revoked from them, there are so many worlds, stories and other lore besides the Forgotten Realms universe I would like to see more of. I also had mixed success with support issues with Atari, namely license issues with DRM on their software and their lack of responses to getting it straightened out.

Of old, one of the interesting things about computer games was seeing how they imperfectly captured the complex open-ended experience of the table top game. However, now the tables are turned. Computer RPGs have much more complicated rules and mechanics than D&D. It was necessary to simplify the rules in 4E to make the game faster moving and appeal to a wider audience. But a computer game can hide all that stuff from the player. You can have all of the complex tactics of 3E (and more) without it bringing your game to a halt. So the D&D mechanics are no longer an inspiration to computer games, but a hindrance.

The only thing that would make a D&D game interesting would be the lore of the worlds that we grew up with. However, again, the gameplay in 4E is so radically different that you are no longer appealing to the nostalgia factor of older players. And if the game lore is going to be radically different, why should I pick a D&D title over some new IP from a major RPG company (e.g. Dragon Age)?

I see no way that D&D will ever again be a major computer IP.

EDIT: Before this devolves into a flamewar, I am not knocking 4E. I am just noting how different it is.

I have always been VERY pissed that the the Dungeons and Dragons:Online game was not set in the Forgotten Realms. Talk about wasted potential.

As for Atari this is no surprise at all. Their reputation for under handed tactics like this are well known all over the on-line game dev community. Gamasutra has reported on them time and time again.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by WalkerWhite:I honestly believe D&D is dead as a computer license.

Of old, one of the interesting things about computer games was seeing how they imperfectly captured the complex open-ended experience of the table top game. However, now the tables are turned. Computer RPGs have much more complicated rules and mechanics than D&D. It was necessary to simplify the rules in 4E to make the game faster moving and appeal to a wider audience. But a computer game can hide all that stuff from the player. You can have all of the complex tactics of 3E (and more) without it bringing your game to a halt. So the D&D mechanics are no longer an inspiration to computer games, but a hindrance.

The only thing that would make a D&D game interesting would be the lore of the worlds that we grew up with. However, again, the gameplay in 4E is so radically different that you are no longer appealing to the nostalgia factor of older players. And if the game lore is going to be radically different, why should I pick a D&D title over some new IP from a major RPG company (e.g. Dragon Age)?

I see no way that D&D will ever again be a major computer IP.

EDIT: Before this devolves into a flamewar, I am not knocking 4E. I am just noting how different it is.

It could be. It just takes good stories. The gameplay is solid enough. If good stories fill in the middle then it is all gravy.

It's sad that Temple of Elemental Evil had so many issues. To the point where you had to apply patches in a specific order and have the stars aligned simultaneously just to be able to finish the game... I would have loved a sequel!

Planescape Torment was brilliant, but that further supports the point that companies stick with profit: even though the game won a ton of awards and some people (myself included) occasionally return to it, a sequel was never produced. Meanwhile, we had more Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale entries than we knew what to do with.

You know, I never even heard of Blood & Magic, but I remember playing Descent to Undermountain (vaguely) and was really unimpressed by it. I was 14, I think, and even then I could tell you that the game was piss-poor with some crappy AI and awful graphics. I *maybe* played it for an hour. Good catches, sorry I missed a couple of games.

@soulrift:Sorry, that sentence is a little confusing. What I meant was that it's a shame some of these other campaign settings and storylines don't make more appearances in games, since it seems like (especially recently) publishers tend to focus on Forgotten Realms and little else.

I can't be the only one who loved Dark Sun and Ravenloft, but I don't think either setting has had a video game made in the past fifteen years (I don't think Ravenloft has ever actually had a video game made). That, in my opinion, is a shame. Variety is the spice of life.

Edit: No, I was wrong. One of my friends told me that, apparently, Ravenloft had a couple of games made (including a fighting game by Acclaim) back in the 1990s, but it's still been way too long since we saw that setting on a computer/console.

Originally posted by vansau:@soulrift:Sorry, that sentence is a little confusing. What I meant was that it's a shame some of these other campaign settings and storylines don't make more appearances in games, since it seems like (especially recently) publishers tend to focus on Forgotten Realms and little else.

I can't be the only one who loved Dark Sun and Ravenloft, but I don't think either setting has had a video game made in the past fifteen years (I don't think Ravenloft has ever actually had a video game made). That, in my opinion, is a shame. Variety is the spice of life.

Edit: No, I was wrong. One of my friends told me that, apparently, Ravenloft had a couple of games made (including a fighting game by Acclaim) back in the 1990s, but it's still been way too long since we saw that setting on a computer/console.

I had quite a few of the AD&D RPG Games from days of yore, and while not all franchises were handled as gracefully or fully as Forgotten Realms, many were indeed represented

Off the top of my head:

Pirates of Realmspace - SpellJammer (SSI)A really cool, if underutilized and often misunderstood setting. WoWzErz!!11! D&D in Space!!1!11 Too bad it was only ever computerized in this really shitty game.

Strahd's Possession - Ravenloft in Barovia (SSI)This game was pretty short. It was the first by developer DreamForge to utilize a non-standard "hybrid" SVGA graphics mode. Graphics were pretty ugly, but the game was fun.

Stone Prophet - Ravenloft in Har'Akir (SSI)The second Ravenloft game, also by DreamForge. Used the same engine as Strahd's Possession, but graphics were a step up. I don't know many people (other than myself) that have played this one.

Shattered Lands - Dark Sun (SSI)Several of my friends really liked this one. Graphics were decent, but the game was dog slow on my PC. Also the extremely repetitive music drove me nuts.

Wake of the Ravager - Dark Sun (SSI)This game was pretty broken and had to be patched to make it even playable. I didn't really care for this one either.

Menzoberranzan - Forgotten Realms, but almost exclusively in the Underdark (SSI)This is the third (?) DreamForge game, same engine as the Ravenloft games. It was pretty good from what I remember of it.

The Gorgon's Alliance - Birthright (Sierra)Never played it, but I know it existed

Torment - Planescape (Interplay)I am one of the 50 people on this planet that have the actual retail disks and manual (lost the box a while ago in a move).

Well that's why I linked back to the Wikipedia entry on D&D computer games. Dreamforge made some fun games back in the '90s, including Stone Prophet, set in the Ravenloft campaign. I also enjoyed Dark Sun: Shattered Lands by SSI.

Mind you, given that Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, et al. were abandoned for D&D 4th ed, we're probably not going to see them in a video game again.

ahh the good old days, I remember being introduced to stone prophet by a friend, he is really responsible for the amount i now spend on gaming (heretic was the other game that i played a lot at that time)

Lets not forget the older AD&D games such as treasures of a savage frontier (i think) and pools of radiance

Personally i loved icewinddale and its expansions. Not so keen on baldurs gate PC (storyline didn't capture my attention)

For the PS2 i loved the baldurs gate and D&D heroes games as they worked well multiplayer with my other half. We need an updated hack n slash in the same style (not like the last gauntlet that had rubbish gameplay and camara angles)

failing to allocate proper resources to Turbine necessary to run the game.

What?

Okay, to be fair most of the WTFs in this article stem from the sub-par writing. Confusing sentences and structures do not a good article make :/ And hey, Atari is still clinging to the law -- hence, Lawful Evil, not CE. If you want to use "nerd references" to spice up your headlines, at least do it right.

The whole shebang is not really surprising. Hasbro/WotC has long worked at getting -- and keeping -- all the strings. Just look at how they screwed up Magic Online 3.0. They're apparently now working on Magic Online 4.0, which will be silverlight. That's right, silverlight. *sigh* So far just hype from non-tech people, but I don't really have my hopes up.

Wizards have been very busy reclaiming their intellectual rights over the last few years -- they stopped selling PDFs of their product (DMB, PHB, MM etc). They've taken back Dragon and Dungeon magazines from Paizo (and killed print editions and turned them digital).

D&D 4e has been launched with a long-term cash-flow plan (new core book every year: PHB3 is coming soon, PHB4 next year etc). The rules have been designed to be rigorously consistent and databasisable.

IMO it's their strategy to bring all their IP in-house.

Originally D&D Insider (a monthly subscription to Wizards website that grants you access to various utilities and Dragon + Dungeon magazines) was advertised as having some sort of "digital gameboard".

Hmmm.

Where are nerdy teenagers more likely to be found these years? Huddled in their bedrooms eating pizza and rolling polyhederal dice or fragging each other from their own homes?

Wizards are going for that market. They've seen WOW's revenue. They want a piece.

Originally posted by mvmiller12:The Gorgon's Alliance - Birthright (Sierra)Never played it, but I know it existed

I actually still own this one. It was different and a mix of different stuff. The main game is trying to conquer every other nation via armies or assassins and how complex and deep that got depended on what the difficulty level you have it set to. It went from simple muster armies and throw them at people to managing province tax levels and quelling rebellion.

Of course it did have the old D&D adventures to find so and so magic items which usually help with your conquer the world stuff but yeah. Overall it was fairly fun though it did have a habit of bugging out *hey its a win95 game, what did you expect lol*.

Side note: Forgotten realsm is the hootie and the blowfish of fantasy RPG settings.

The guy previously talking about Ravenloft and planescape should host a spelljammer party, i'll come along with my 13th level elven mage from high school that took 2 years of real pen and paper effort and no small amount of luck to build up (no I never got beat up, yes I had to wait till uni to get laid, not a good tradeoff IMHO).

Still nothing beats the real deal which sadly will likely never come to computers until VR meeting rooms become common. I do very much miss my high school and uni RPG groups (more so the uni ones since they had a lot more, er, herb involved and also I wasn't playing with them because I had to)

Originally posted by mvmiller12:Strahd's Possession - Ravenloft in Barovia (SSI)This game was pretty short. It was the first by developer DreamForge to utilize a non-standard "hybrid" SVGA graphics mode. Graphics were pretty ugly, but the game was fun.

Stone Prophet - Ravenloft in Har'Akir (SSI)The second Ravenloft game, also by DreamForge. Used the same engine as Strahd's Possession, but graphics were a step up. I don't know many people (other than myself) that have played this one.

Well add one more

quote:

Originally posted by mvmiller12:Shattered Lands - Dark Sun (SSI)Several of my friends really liked this one. Graphics were decent, but the game was dog slow on my PC. Also the extremely repetitive music drove me nuts.

This was a really good game after you got into it. It also ran very slow on my computer - still quite good.

Wake of the Ravager - Dark Sun (SSI)This game was pretty broken and had to be patched to make it even playable. I didn't really care for this one either.

Menzoberranzan - Forgotten Realms, but almost exclusively in the Underdark (SSI)This is the third (?) DreamForge game, same engine as the Ravenloft games. It was pretty good from what I remember of it.

The Gorgon's Alliance - Birthright (Sierra)Never played it, but I know it existed

quote:

Originally posted by mvmiller12:Torment - Planescape (Interplay)I am one of the 50 people on this planet that have the actual retail disks and manual (lost the box a while ago in a move).

Isn't that quite common? I know I still have both disks, box and manual

"Wizards are going for that market. They've seen WOW's revenue. They want a piece."

Well thats the problem in a nutshell. They don't think their product is strong enough on its own, despite 36 years of being the number one RPG and despite being the first RPG ever. World of Warcraft wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for D&D. They have this so backwards. What's needed is a visionary who realises that 36 years from now, NO ONE WILL BE PLAYING WOW. The servers will have long closed down, the Operating systems will be incompatible, the computer hardware in landfills and museums. But people will still be playing D&D.

My favourite D&D games, in the order I played them, were the Bards Tale (not official D&D this one), Pool of Radiance, Eye of the Beholder, Pols of Darkness, Menzoberranzen, Ruins of Undermountain, Baldur's Gate, Baldurs Gate 2, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment and finally Neverwinter Nights. Great times.

Originally posted by I Palindrome I:I went for chaotic evil, Jon for lawful evil. I decided to with CE for the headline, but it has been... longer since I have played than it has for Jon, so I probably should have listened to him.

No, you're right. Atari is being accused of violating the law--i.e., being chaotic.

However, looking at a list of the most popular D&D games reveals a common thread behind them: developers like Bioware and Black Isle (which eventually became Obsidian Entertainment). Maybe Hasbro should cut out the middleman

They probably should. However, depending on how this lawsuit goes, it might make developers afraid to deal with Hasbro. If you do a deal with them, and they don't like how it's going, will they cut you out?

Originally posted by I Palindrome I:I went for chaotic evil, Jon for lawful evil. I decided to with CE for the headline, but it has been... longer since I have played than it has for Jon, so I probably should have listened to him.

No, you're right. Atari is being accused of violating the law--i.e., being chaotic.

The variation on how alignments are perceived never ceases to amaze me. Let's dive straight to the muddle with my view: Chaotic doesn't mean you always break the law or seek to break it, and Lawful doesn't mean you always uphold it. They're moral guidelines that roughly describe how a character (or an organization) feels about issues (let's not even get to the assumed objective POV and bigotry inherent in the system). If a paladin would, say, kill a vampire that held a high position in a society, he would probably willingly submit to a trial, and seek to convince the law that he was in the right. A CN thief (excuse me, rogue.), however, would be more inclined to loot the house and slink away into the night.

Would you call a mother hiding her child from oppression neutral good? Probably. What if he had been chosen by government authorities to be a sacrifice? Lawful good! What if the sacrifice was once every hundred years and if neglected something really bad would happen and the sacrifice was decided by lot? Chaotic Evil!(or CG) What if the whole thing was a prank made hundreds of years ago by a God? Back to Lawful Good! What if the mother is a goblin? Chaotic Evil !

*Sigh* As a final comment, here LE/NE could be considered correct, if we see Atari as really having failed their contractual obligations on purpose and assume that Hasbro and Turbine to be LG and "always true to their word". However, we're talking about huge corporations, whose 'truths' are probably somewhat muddled themselves. CE would be if Atari took the rights by force or subjugation, then just made with them as they pleased and arrogantly claimed they have a right to anything they want to do. However, they've held up their part of the bargain by indeed making good games (well, publishing good games) or at least trying. Personally, I'd view all medium-huge corporations as being LE, as they all work within the guidelines of the law -- all the while residing in 'gray areas' and constantly trying to change/bend laws, contracts and agreements for their own benefit.

Originally posted by kingius:"Wizards are going for that market. They've seen WOW's revenue. They want a piece."

Well thats the problem in a nutshell. They don't think their product is strong enough on its own, despite 36 years of being the number one RPG and despite being the first RPG ever. World of Warcraft wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for D&D. They have this so backwards. What's needed is a visionary who realises that 36 years from now, NO ONE WILL BE PLAYING WOW. The servers will have long closed down, the Operating systems will be incompatible, the computer hardware in landfills and museums. But people will still be playing D&D.

With the difference that WoW will probably make more money it's (short) lifetime than D&D made in 70 years.

Originally D&D Insider (a monthly subscription to Wizards website that grants you access to various utilities and Dragon + Dungeon magazines) was advertised as having some sort of "digital gameboard".

Word is that this product was killed.

I agree that Wizards is trying to bring all the IP in house. This is why I emphasized that D&D as a computer IP is dead. Wizards does not understand that market and, without major changes in their cultural climate, never will.

If you ever read anything from the current crop of game designers at Wizards, they are masters of PvP balance, but they have become increasingly disdainful of PvE. They learned a lot of good lessons from Magic, and they used those lessons to make a solid game where players can fight against each other in a balanced setting. But 4E heavily de-emphasizes the non-combat portions of the game -- the storytelling. Sure, storytelling exists, there are just a lot less rules in that part of that game. And many people think that is superior; the game is more open ended.

But it means Wizards is not going to be making story-heavy computer RPGs like we see out of BioWare or Bethesda. To do this in a computer setting, you need more structured rules because you do not have an AI complete referee sitting behind the curtain. And Wizards simple does not have the talent for this.

two comments: First Comment: Champions Online wasn't a great. From external evidence it was one of the worst financial disasters to befall Infogrames during the 2009 operating season. New players to the SuperHero MMO Genre got a small taste of the Jack Emmert City of Heroes years on the game's launch day with a massive de-balancing of the game mechanics (reads: everything got nerfed on launch). Further tastes of the Jack Emmert style of City of Heroes have shown through with botched Holiday Events, such as the Halloween Blood Moon trial that fizzled through it's free Steam Weekend. We also know from external evidence that many of the lifetime subscriptions purchased for Star Trek Online Beta access were refunded when it was revealed that purchasing a LifeTime sub to Champions Online didn't actually guarantee an STO Closed Beta spot. So I'm not sure where the term great game can be used in relation to Champions Online. It was a flop out of the gate, and so far evidenced by those who left City of Heroes, then came back to City of Heroes, probably hasn't got a chance at redeeming itself before Cryptic does what they did with City of Heroes.

Oh yeah, remember that? Cryptic got the rights to do Marvel Universe Online and what happened to City of Heroes development? Oh yeah, it STAGNATED as tech and gaming ideas that could have been implemented in City of Heroes were deliberately not implemented with the idea that the launch of Marvel Universe Online would allow Cryptic to just kill City of Heroes off.

Okay, in all fairness, Star Trek Online isn't in the same genre as Champions Online, and in theory Cryptic wouldn't want to, or have to, hold Champions Online back in order for Star Trek Online to succeed. However, this is Cryptic's method of operation. Hamstring a currently published title to make the next title all that more appealing. What would be happening IF Cryptic was indeed working on a NeverWinter Nights MMO? Do they really have the staff to develop 2 games in the background while maintaining a published game? Well, they haven't shown this ability to do so in the past.

***

Second Comment: The original news article makes a lot more sense if you rip out the word Atari and put in the word Infogrames. The whole point of Infogrames buying out the Atari moniker was so that casual press analysts would get confused and treat the Atari name as Atari, rather than as who the executive team is. The actions of Infogrames are not of any surprise to anybody who has worked with, or read about, Infogrames in the past. Infogrames actions with the Dungeons and Dragons licenses is just the course par for a company known for it's bungles.

I think the real sad part is dragging the name of Atari through all of this when the current company has absolutely nothing to do with the history of Atari. They simply bought the name, and now they're driving it into the ground.

Originally posted by kingius:What's needed is a visionary who realises that 36 years from now, NO ONE WILL BE PLAYING WOW. The servers will have long closed down, the Operating systems will be incompatible, the computer hardware in landfills and museums. But people will still be playing D&D.

Wizards wishes it was as good at brand management as Blizzard is.

Do you play D&D 1.0? The brown books from the mid 70s? I doubt it. You play a game that has evolved greatly over the years and now calls itself D&D.

The same will be true of Warcraft.

The sad truth is that pen-and-paper RPGs are becoming an increasingly niche market. I see lots of students that call themselves "gamers", but have never played a game that was not on a computer or a console. There are many, many reasons for this (such as the difficulty of finding good game masters, and how this effects people's impression of the game), but they are becoming marginalized. Wizards had to take make major changes to 4E to address this problem, and by some metrics they succeeded. But the game is very, very different from of old.

So will people be playing D&D 36 years from now? Probably. And it will be a game you barely recognize. The same is true for WoW.